Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

12 Citing cases

  1. Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.

    124 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1997)   Cited 112 times
    Holding trial court "must perform its gatekeeping function, by assessing whether the testimony 'will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue'" (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702)

    In the instant case, of course, there is no suggestion that Peters was not in default under its loan restructuring agreement with Fleet. Finally, Peters relies on Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 405 N.E.2d 985 (Mass.App.Ct. 1980), which upheld a denial of a motion to dismiss a "collusive foreclosure" claim that collateral worth over $3 million had been sold in a private foreclosure sale for only $879,159, the full amount of the secured debt. Id. at 987.

  2. Thomas v. Price

    975 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 205 times
    Holding that "[t]o avoid a summary judgment, the nonmoving party must adduce admissible evidence which creates a fact issue"

    In support of his argument that under section 9.504(d) a private foreclosure sale may be nullified because of the purchaser's lack of good faith alone, Thomas cites two cases: In re Four Star Music Co., 2 B.R. 454, 29 U.C.C.Rep. 343 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn. 1979); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985, 29 U.C.C.Rep. 292 (1980). Neither one supports Thomas' proposition.

  3. Natl. Gypsum Co. v. Continental Brands

    895 F. Supp. 328 (D. Mass. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Finding no "continuity of enterprise" exception in Massachusetts law and following "the traditional de facto merger or continuation analysis, with its keystones of continuous ownership and inequitable conduct"

    Because the transaction involved a foreclosure by BayBank on Continental's assets, the plaintiffs would also have to show that Continental colluded with BayBank in effecting the transfer. See Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 49, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980). A transaction could fit within this category even if it was technically insolvent before the transaction if the sale was without fair consideration and had the effect of further diminishing the assets available to creditors.

  4. Gottlieb v. Elkwood Assocs., LLC (In re Yashouafar)

    Case No.: 1:16-bk-12255-GM (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2017)

    1994); Bennett v. Genoa Ag Ctr., Inc. (In re Bennett ), 154 B.R. 140, 147 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1992); Consumers Credit Union v. Widett (In re Health Gourmet, Inc.), 29 B.R. 673, 676 (Bankr.D.Mass.1983); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985, 987 (1980); accord, analysis in United States v. Shepherd, 834 F. Supp. 175 (N.D.Tex.1993), though that decision was later reversed for lack of federal jurisdiction to overturn a state forfeiture, 23 F.3d 923 (5th Cir.1994)).Mussetter v. Lyke, 10 F. Supp. 2d 944, 959 (N.D. Ill. 1998), aff'd, 202 F.3d 274 (7th Cir. 1999)(applying California Fraudulent Transfer Act to collusive foreclosure sale).

  5. Weiler v. PortfolioScope, Inc.

    469 Mass. 75 (Mass. 2014)   Cited 94 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting out elements of cause of action

    See Steel Co. v. Morgan Marshall Indus., Inc., 278 Ill.App.3d 241, 250–252, 214 Ill.Dec. 1029, 662 N.E.2d 595 (1996) (although no dispute that art. 9 of Uniform Commercial Code was complied with, genuine issue of material fact remained whether transfers made with actual intent to defraud). Cf. Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass.App.Ct. 47, 50, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980), quoting 1B Coogan, Hogan, & Vagts, Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 13.07(1), at 1381 (1980) (“Clearly, article 9 does not replace the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act”). Cases decided before the enactment of the UFTA in Massachusetts have stated that when a debtor has paid one creditor over another, even when the payment comprised substantially all of the debtor's assets, this fact by itself is insufficient to establish an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud.

  6. Boender v. Chicago North Clubhouse Ass'n

    240 Ill. App. 3d 622 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that improper notice may be inferred where secured creditor purchases collateral for price well below market value as the only bidder at a § 9-504 sale

    The debtor has the right under section 9-507(1) to recover for "any loss caused by a failure to comply" with section 9-504's requirement that the disposition of the collateral be made in a commercially reasonable manner. ( United States v. Conrad Publishing Co. (8th Cir. 1978), 589 F.2d 949, 955; Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co. (Mass. Ct. App. 1980), 405 N.E.2d 985, 988.) The debtor may recover monetary damages.

  7. Blieden v. Blieden

    14 Mass. App. Ct. 959 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977). Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 48 (1980). In determining whether the husband's complaint states a valid claim for modification of the divorce judgment under G.L.c. 208, § 37, we must consider whether the facts as alleged indicate a material change of circumstances in the needs or resources of the parties since the entry of the earlier judgment.

  8. Shaw v. Siegel

    13 Mass. App. Ct. 258 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 11 times
    Allowing consideration of possible amendments because the judge mistakenly used Mass.R.Civ.P. 56 to dismiss all claims for wrongful termination

    Accordingly, the judgment under rule 54(b) is to be vacated so that within thirty days after the receipt in the Superior Court of the rescript from this court (a time limit which should be respected except for substantial cause shown), Shaw may seek leave to file an amended or substitute complaint. See Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 104 (1977); Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas, 378 Mass. 85, 100-101 (1979); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 48-56 (1980). Compare Bass River Lobsters, Inc. v. Smith, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 197, 198-202 (1979).

  9. Lewis v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.

    2000 Mass. App. Div. 336 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

    All inferences are to be taken in favor of the plaintiff. Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., Inc., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 48 (1980). His complaint centers on a claim for damages for the amount of the check drawn to him and his client.

  10. McNeil v. Farrell

    2000 Mass. App. Div. 124 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    All inferences are to be taken in favor of the plaintiff. Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. KingstonTool Co.. Inc., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 48 (1980). The factual allegations of the complaint, as supplemented by the motion judge's voluntary report, present the following scenario: